Academic journal article Cross - Cultural Communication

Implementation Performance Evaluation on Land Use Planning: A Case of Chengdu, China

Academic journal article Cross - Cultural Communication

Implementation Performance Evaluation on Land Use Planning: A Case of Chengdu, China

Article excerpt


This paper aims at evaluating implementation performance of land use planning of Chengdu city from economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity perspectives. The results shows that that over the period of 1997-2006, the land use planning of Chengdu city achieves a better implementation performance in economy, efficiency and effectiveness fields but in the equity fields is not so good. Then the paper proposes some policy recommendations to improve the land use planning.

Key Words: Land use planning; Implementation performance evaluation; Chengdu city


There is a growing concern about implementation performance evaluation on land use planning (LUP) in the context of urban sprawl, sharp decline arable land area and environment degradation. China has many people with few land resources; and per capita arable land area decreased to 0.093 hm2, less than the world average of 40%, of which high-quality arable land only 1/3 of the total in 2006. LUP has an important role in allocating land resources among different uses but it always fails in controlling the arable land decrease, which give rise to the argument about evaluating the implementation performance of the LUP in China. Baer (1999) proposed impact assessment approach to assess the LUP implementation performance based on its consequences and implications so that to make a revision of the planning according to the reality of policy changes. David Harvey (2001) evaluated planning implementation results based on full understanding of legitimacy, fairness and social issues. Ge He et al. (2010) established coordination degree model which integrated land use efficiency, ecological service value and compact growth to evaluate the result of the LUP control urban sprawl. Alexander (1989) believed that the performance evaluation of planning implementation could provide a scientific basis for decision-making. Talen (1996) thought that the successful planning implementation conformed the planning intention. Lucie Laurian (2004) established the performance evaluation index system based on the breadth and depth of planning implementation; Calbick (2004) established 24 indicators combined questionnaire surveys and interviews to sort the degree of indicators success. Xia et al. (2006) designed a set of evaluation index system of land use planning based on implementation policies, land use and effectiveness of implementation.

Objectively speaking, there have been many studies on implementation performance evaluation on the LUP. However, few literatures study it from economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity ("4E") aspects although it has been widely used in governmental performance evaluation. In this context, this paper aims at evaluating on implementation performance of the LUP of Chengdu city from "4E" perspective. This paper unfolds as follows: the next section reviews the literature related to this study, the third section is methodology introducing the evaluation method and data used in this study, the fourth section is results and the last section concludes.


In the 1980s, in a new program of reform of financial management, the United Kingdom efficiency group took the lead in the establishment of "3E" Assessment Programme: Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness. View of "3E" performance evaluation excessive pursuit of economic efficiency and ignore the concept of social value, such as equality, public, fair. In 1997, Flynn added Equity to the "3E", so that become the "4E" performance evaluation criteria. These sustainable development indicators more directly reflect the long-term interests of the Government affairs provide favorable conditions for the establishment of the market as the main economic development environment. Specifically, the economic indicators consider the "cost" and "input"; efficiency indicators should consider "input" and "output"; effectiveness indicators consider the "output" and "results"; equity indicators consider "results" and "fair". …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.